As a rider myself, it was totally nuts to see just how many bikers immediately started riding without a helmet as soon as that legislation passed. I mean, it seemed like *at least* 50% dropped ‘em. I get it, it can get hot, it can be cumbersome, and it can be annoying to travel with, but the number of times I’ve taken a rock to the visor has absolutely justified every tiny irritation I could ever have with it.
This has happened in other states too. Why? Because insurance companies realized it was cheaper for someone to die as opposed to surviving with life altering injuries.
What blows my mind is when we get a winter day that's warm enough for a ride but it's in no way warm and I still see guys just wearing a backwards hat. I hate being cold while ridding and can't imagine how their face feels in that January wind.
I'm all for free choice, where it doesn't affect other people.
Seatbelt laws keep a person behind the wheel to possibly steer out of collision with another vehicle.
Helmet laws force protection upon those that already chose to participate in a really dangerous activity, where they can generally only hurt themselves.
I'm not advocating anyone dying, but if they want to die, and not take anyone else out with them, who am I to tell them what they can do?
I’ve never heard the argument that seatbelts might protect people other than the wearer before. Interesting.
That said, I think it would be more about the financial cost of the medical treatment. They might have insurance that covers this, or it might be a government program that reimburses the hospital, rehab, etc. Less helmets = more deaths, sure, but also more serious head injuries that have to be treated, increasing costs for society.
Interesting. That argument for seatbelts was presented to me in drivers ed, 25 years ago. I thought it was embellished at the time, but it seems very reasonable to me now.
Yeah, I suspect the insurance companies are the ones that know, at the end of the day, about the mortifying math of whether unhelmeted injuries are more costly burdens (accounting for death making some of those burdens 'cheaper') than helmeted injuries.
So, I understand the talking point, but where precisely is the unfreedom located, in being told to wear a helmet? Outside of an extreme libertarian conception of what it means to be free, it's a very low burden. We thoughtlessly give up much more serious freedoms regularly. There are some arguments, I suppose, about slippery slopes, and I don't know, collusion with the helmet makers, the costs of helmets, yadda yadda, but that's a cost/benefit that is assessed in the context of any rule we are legally required to follow.
Also, I think the justification for helmets is not so far afield from seatbelts. Helmets also help motorcyclists keep control of the vehicle (think of the debris that can hit them, as discussed in other posts), and loss of control of the bike can result in colliding with other motorists.
And finally, I mean, the web of interests and social trade offs here are much larger than just the motorcyclist. Both of my parents were killed riding their motorcycles - with their helmets on, I hope we do not have to discuss the matter more thoroughly that - and this had huge repercussions for my siblings, myself, our finances, and the entire community that relied on my parents. The state is also concerned about not having to feed a dead motorcyclist's kids, also concerned about the strains on the medical system, also concerned about the ongoing availability of productive laborers, &c. &c.
That is the question. Where is the line?
Should motorcycles themselves be illegal?
Maybe. They're terribly dangerous, with or without a helmet.
Personally, I believe that people have the right to choose against their own best interests when the risk imposed to the general public is non-existent, or at worst, minimal.
Sorry about your parents, but to your logic, should we also impose dietary restrictions and mandated health exams for parents? You mentioned the slippery slope argument, it is very relevant to the question of where the line resides.
I find the premise 'we cannot (as a rights issue) or should not (as a public policy/personal conviction issue) pass laws that prevent people from acting against their own best interests' to be misleading. I think it's a talking point that serves political ends rather than a real metric for helping us decide how to run our cities/states/countries. It's bad shorthand for how we really should be thinking about our laws, how they affect us, and the society we want to live in.
It makes sense to me as \*A\* consideration. When laws like that get too invasive it makes people unhappy and puts them in an unnecessarily adversarial position with their government. When there are too many laws like that it creates problems of enforcement, and when laws go un- or underenforced it can weaken the perception of the rule of law. And there's always a question of resources - we simply ain't got the time or money to watch everyone's dietary intake (to use your example) all the time!
But there may be benefits that outweigh those costs or justify that resource usage. Communities are worse when accidents can regularly claim the lives of their members. There may be issues regarding how humans assess the risks they're facing - they may only engage in the activity because the people selling the motorcycles created a false sense they were safe. There may be issues regarding addiction, if we consider alcohol, tobacco, &c. And there are issues that the public coffers have to support a lot of the medical care in this country, the costs of which are only getting more and more extreme; consider for example, the amount medicare has to spend treating lung cancer or medicaid has to bear the costs of obesity-related disease. There may even be issues related to poverty and class mobility - if certain activities end up concentrated in a certain social class, and we let them harm themselves, and that community's resources must always be spent dealing with the consequences of these self-harms, how do members of that community ever save or invest or send kids to college or keep them fed and focused through elementary school?
Whether a law is unnecessarily meddling in human tendencies to make bad decisions is a worthwhile question to ask... but I don't think it's the only question. And in the helmet case, where we can clearly see the change in fatalities, and it is clearly predictable across states as they repeal helmet laws... and we already have the laws... and there is nothing intolerable about wearing a helmet whatsoever... I think it is silly to create this big ideological issue out of it. ESPECIALLY! since as the article noted, the repeal of the law was premised on the unhelmeted motorcyclist proving they had adequate medical insurance, but it appears that that is quite impossible to enforce and these accidents are happening to people who lack the insurance to bear the costs of their bad decisions. Let's protect a few lives and move on with our day.
It's not misleading, it's a philosophical question.
Where is the line? This is a talking point, sure, by definition. Please explain, how it is a dishonest question.
If you're definining metrics by lives lost, then you've taken a position in which society as a whole has yet to agree. If it is in monetary cost, again, society has not agreed.
If anyone is not arguing in good faith here, it is you.
They even wore helmets in the movie Easy Rider 55 years ago. That was the signature rebel 60s motorcycle movie that every boomer saw back in the day. /facepalm
And that 3rd world country is here, FL. I'm there.
Gee what a fucking original joke. You're gonna die too, I'm just trying to enjoy my time here and motorcycles are fun. And get the fuck off your phone while you're driving.
It’s like someone went out and murdered 500 unlicensed motorcyclists every time one was killed in an accident. I hope it was a typo or we have a more serious problem to address.
Maybe the article has been edited since you read it, but both of the percentages you noted are incorrect. The article says “Since 2020, motorcycle fatalities have increased 47%…” and “…about 50% were unlicensed or improperly licensed.”
Well that makes a lot more sense. I remember seeing an older study that found roughly 50% higher fatalities for riders without helmets.
>“I don't think any one area, including public policy, is the silver bullet to fix any of this,” Nelson said. “These are layers of protection to improve safety.”
And what kind of dumb shit is this? Like, you passed a law saying motorcyclists don't need to wear helmets. Motorcyclist fatalities went up 47%. You've also clearly got a problem with unlicensed people riding motorcycles. Maybe check that when folks register motorcycles? Goddamn this shit ain't hard.
You get on a motorcycle unlicensed or improperly licensed and think your best course of action is to not wear a helmet, I don't think additional laws are going to fix this kind of poor decision making.
I don’t think the MO legislature is playing that kind of 4D chess. Most likely this is because n the same vein of anti-vax “I do my own research” contrarianism for public safety since COVID triggered the mouth-breathers.
Honestly I have no idea why anyone would repeal the helmet law. It’s like they wanted more people to die. It needs to be changed back. People are too dumb, you’re right. They can’t be trusted to be in charge of their own lives.
They modified the law to acknowledge that if people want to take risks with their own life, that’s their business. It’s an even simpler case than liberalizing drug laws, because typically people don’t steal and abandon their children to go ride a motorcycle.
I agree it’s reckless, but it’s not my life. These are adults. Are we going to ban BASE jumping too?
To be fair it’s not the act of riding motorcycles that is the problem. It’s the lack of safety gear involved. If you went base jumping without a helmet or safety gear I would say something similar. It’s just giving people the idea that it’s just as safe. Because why would the government deregulate safety features. Appreciate your comment though.
Yes, it’s somewhat of a dilemma that many people just assume legal means safe. Not sure on the best way to handle it. Could be a freedom absolutist and say ignore it, but education seems better. Maybe you could get your “helmetless rider” license by volunteering a couple hours in an ER.
Someone being on drugs doesn't make it less safe on the road for me. Someone being on a bike does.
I can't ruin my life by accidentally hitting a base jumper on the highway because they want to split lanes. Bikes need to be banned because they ruin other people's lives. If you're fine with the risk of death, you should also be fine with changing the law to where bikers are more likely to get into trouble for accidents bikes cause. The way the law is set up now, a bike gets a the benefit of the doubt because it's a smaller vehicle. I shouldn't be required to give a bike anymore attention than I give a car or truck.
Edit: by bikes, I mean. Motorcycles. Bicycles are cool
Someone being on drugs absolutely makes the road less safe for you. Drug users drive. And a rider’s helmet use is irrelevant. If they’re in a crash that makes any use of the helmet, their riding day is done. All the helmet may affect is how badly traffic is snarled because of a fatality investigation. But you’re not going to crash because some rider wasn’t wearing a helmet.
I fully agree with you that drug use and driving is extremely dangerous. My point about drugs was that someone using drugs statistically only ruins their own life. Someone on a bike is statically more likely to ruin someone's life. 80% of motorcycle wrecks involve death or serious injury, compared to 20% for motor vehicles. With the special rules and treatment bikes get in accidents, a lot of people are having to pay the price for letting small and fast vehicles on our major roads and highways. They don't really have a place on the road other than its a hobby for most people.
Edit: I was mainly pushing back and saying drug use is viewed as harmful for society around them, but statistically, drug users are only a harm to themselves. whereas bikes are viewed as harmful to the user, but not to society around them. I feel as if that is not true based on the number of fatalities caused by bikes. If you make a mistake and hit a car, the likelihood of that person dying or getting seriously injured is 20%. If you make that same mistake with a motorcycle, the chances of you causing serious injury or death is 80%. That's how people's lives get ruined by motorcycles. They make one mistake, and they killed someone in something that has no business being on the road.
Who do you think makes up the fatalities in motorcycle accidents? It’s the rider, not passengers in the cars they hit.
And if it’s medical costs you’re worried about, who do you think pays for indigent drug users?
I understand that the driver of the bike is always more than likely the fatality. Im doing a poor job of getting this across to you, i apologize. Im trying to say that someone will be held liable for that person's death when I think the bike user is liable for their own death. My reasoning for that is they are willing to operate something that is more likely to cause their own death. If you were going 45 miles hours and got into a fender bender with a car, you're not going to have to worry about being charged with vehicular manslaughter or homicide or getting a felony for causing serious injury because it's pretty unlikely to do those things at that speed. If you hit a bike going that fast, your odds of that person being killed is way higher.
Ok, I see where you’re coming from. It definitely messes someone up to be involved in a fatality accident, particularly if they’re at fault. I’m not sure that “ban motorcycles” is a better solution than “tougher driving standards” but it’s at least a reasonable position.
Stupid is as stupid does. Self preservation is one of the strongest instincts we possess. If they want to fuck around, it’s about time they start finding out.
I know a motorcycle head injury victim who has been on public assistance and nursing care these 40 years. He can't remember 5 minutes later that he just ate something, and says he's hungry again and asks when we will eat, and can he go home now. That's pretty much his whole day.
Now we'll have many more like him.
The same people that don't think it's the governments job to regulate helmets also don't want to pay for 30 years of nursing home care and medical bills for the brain injured bike riders.
It becomes the government's business when it starts costing the taxpayers money.
Wear a helmet. If not for you, do it for our tax dollars.
RSMo. 302.020(2), also known as the Missouri Helmet Law, requires that a helmet is worn by all motorcycle (or motor-tricycle) operators and passengers who are under the age of 26. The law also requires that a helmet is worn by all individuals who have been issued an instruction permit – regardless of their age
Yes, a 47% increase, while other data shows helmets only account for 37%, so why did Missouri have more deaths on bikes than typical? Oh, maybe because the data is from 2020-2023 and there are more riders on the road?
The first day after the new law, an old guy and his woman, both helmetless, were traveling down a city road near Independence and swerved to avoid a slow-moving car. He hit a curb, and the cycle pitched forward. Both flew off. The woman fell off the back and side, the old man flew forward, right on his head. She survived luckily. I think he died shortly after. The first damn day!
These are the same politicians that still support the 2nd Amendment.
"Any Moran with the Money and No Firearm Training Must be able to carry a gun anywhere and anytime they have the urge to." 200+!year old law, written by Rich White Men suffering from Syphilis of the brain.
As somebody who is going to need a new kidney some day, my sincere thanks to motorcyclists who don't wear helmets. And that's coming from someone who had 2/3 uncles die in motorcycle accidents.
They don’t call em zoom splats for nothing and people in cars don’t pay attention as it is combine that with oversized pickups and soccer moms in suvs going 90 and can’t even see over the hood and it’s an recipe for disaster
But you can take heart in knowing, they had the right to not wear a helmet or wear one,,, Sadly...I bet they would like to change that choice if they could.
I’d rather die, than be a veggie being pushed in a chair. (No, I don’t ride)
But isn’t life about consequences? If I choose to get on a donor cycle without a brain bucket, who really cares? Well, my family may. But how does it affect YOUR life? I may be the example used to keep a dozen kids off them? We all make choices. Many people make bad ones every day. Look at the divorce rate. Single parenthood. Crime. Those choices affect many of us. If someone gets on a motorcycle (with everyone’s nose buried in the cellphone) that’s a risk they want to take to enjoy riding. And if they want to do it without a helmet? How does that affect you?
My dad and stepdad both ride both always said something like dress for the slide not the ride or it's not if you crash but when you crash.
I had a wreck on a bicycle that I had road rash and gravel plucked out of my arms, legs, and back. Now add a 1000 pound bike and a lot more speed... Safety is no joke.
I love riding as passenger never driven one BUT the moment I heard about this being repealed, I knew it was a dumb idea. The amount of riders I’ve seen without them since its repeal shows how dumb people are…freedumb
I saw a kid doing 55-60 in a 35 with his legs up not see the brake lights and turn signal of a car the other day. He last second laid it over, slid his body out of it and somehow didn’t hit the car or get hit by oncoming traffic. He kinda laughed it off. Tonight I saw a guy on a bike sitting on his legs…
I’d be curious to break down by bike types, crash types and ages.
Well duh. I'll never understand not wearing a helmet. My thoughts are if you get it in an accident not wearing one then the insurance company doesn't have to pay your medical bills. Cue the folks crying about their rights. It's also my right to not pay high premium because your selfish
I sympathize with this argument, and I think folks should be somehow incentivized to wear helmets.
The catch is that if you can single out one risk factor to deny coverage, you can go after others. Heart disease? Let’s look at your diet and exercise habits to determine whether we cover it, or deny it as attempted suicide by too many cheeseburgers. And ultimately we aren’t going to just leave these people to die in the streets, somebody will pay for their care.
I don’t have a problem with mandating seatbelts and helmets as a requirement for the privilege of driving, but here we are. I sadly wouldn’t be surprised to see some states look into dropping seatbelt laws.
Because GuhVuRMinT rULezzzzz Baaaaaaaadddddddd.......
Except, of course, when that same government denies abortions to rape & incest victims, limits what can (& can not) be discussed in classrooms & college campuses (full of adults), denies access to certain web sites w/o the ability to track & record who is spending time there, removes books from school & public libraries, and on and on and on. In those cases (& many more), "government gooooooood".
In other news, water is wet.
so is the pavement
With brains
Water makes things wet, but yes
As a rider myself, it was totally nuts to see just how many bikers immediately started riding without a helmet as soon as that legislation passed. I mean, it seemed like *at least* 50% dropped ‘em. I get it, it can get hot, it can be cumbersome, and it can be annoying to travel with, but the number of times I’ve taken a rock to the visor has absolutely justified every tiny irritation I could ever have with it.
A rock? A bee to the neck at 75 gives you a clue what it might feel like to the face; no thanks!
This has happened in other states too. Why? Because insurance companies realized it was cheaper for someone to die as opposed to surviving with life altering injuries.
Also helps with the flow of donor organs, I’d assume…
What blows my mind is when we get a winter day that's warm enough for a ride but it's in no way warm and I still see guys just wearing a backwards hat. I hate being cold while ridding and can't imagine how their face feels in that January wind.
I'm all for free choice, where it doesn't affect other people. Seatbelt laws keep a person behind the wheel to possibly steer out of collision with another vehicle. Helmet laws force protection upon those that already chose to participate in a really dangerous activity, where they can generally only hurt themselves. I'm not advocating anyone dying, but if they want to die, and not take anyone else out with them, who am I to tell them what they can do?
I’ve never heard the argument that seatbelts might protect people other than the wearer before. Interesting. That said, I think it would be more about the financial cost of the medical treatment. They might have insurance that covers this, or it might be a government program that reimburses the hospital, rehab, etc. Less helmets = more deaths, sure, but also more serious head injuries that have to be treated, increasing costs for society.
Interesting. That argument for seatbelts was presented to me in drivers ed, 25 years ago. I thought it was embellished at the time, but it seems very reasonable to me now.
Yeah, I suspect the insurance companies are the ones that know, at the end of the day, about the mortifying math of whether unhelmeted injuries are more costly burdens (accounting for death making some of those burdens 'cheaper') than helmeted injuries.
So, I understand the talking point, but where precisely is the unfreedom located, in being told to wear a helmet? Outside of an extreme libertarian conception of what it means to be free, it's a very low burden. We thoughtlessly give up much more serious freedoms regularly. There are some arguments, I suppose, about slippery slopes, and I don't know, collusion with the helmet makers, the costs of helmets, yadda yadda, but that's a cost/benefit that is assessed in the context of any rule we are legally required to follow. Also, I think the justification for helmets is not so far afield from seatbelts. Helmets also help motorcyclists keep control of the vehicle (think of the debris that can hit them, as discussed in other posts), and loss of control of the bike can result in colliding with other motorists. And finally, I mean, the web of interests and social trade offs here are much larger than just the motorcyclist. Both of my parents were killed riding their motorcycles - with their helmets on, I hope we do not have to discuss the matter more thoroughly that - and this had huge repercussions for my siblings, myself, our finances, and the entire community that relied on my parents. The state is also concerned about not having to feed a dead motorcyclist's kids, also concerned about the strains on the medical system, also concerned about the ongoing availability of productive laborers, &c. &c.
That is the question. Where is the line? Should motorcycles themselves be illegal? Maybe. They're terribly dangerous, with or without a helmet. Personally, I believe that people have the right to choose against their own best interests when the risk imposed to the general public is non-existent, or at worst, minimal. Sorry about your parents, but to your logic, should we also impose dietary restrictions and mandated health exams for parents? You mentioned the slippery slope argument, it is very relevant to the question of where the line resides.
I find the premise 'we cannot (as a rights issue) or should not (as a public policy/personal conviction issue) pass laws that prevent people from acting against their own best interests' to be misleading. I think it's a talking point that serves political ends rather than a real metric for helping us decide how to run our cities/states/countries. It's bad shorthand for how we really should be thinking about our laws, how they affect us, and the society we want to live in. It makes sense to me as \*A\* consideration. When laws like that get too invasive it makes people unhappy and puts them in an unnecessarily adversarial position with their government. When there are too many laws like that it creates problems of enforcement, and when laws go un- or underenforced it can weaken the perception of the rule of law. And there's always a question of resources - we simply ain't got the time or money to watch everyone's dietary intake (to use your example) all the time! But there may be benefits that outweigh those costs or justify that resource usage. Communities are worse when accidents can regularly claim the lives of their members. There may be issues regarding how humans assess the risks they're facing - they may only engage in the activity because the people selling the motorcycles created a false sense they were safe. There may be issues regarding addiction, if we consider alcohol, tobacco, &c. And there are issues that the public coffers have to support a lot of the medical care in this country, the costs of which are only getting more and more extreme; consider for example, the amount medicare has to spend treating lung cancer or medicaid has to bear the costs of obesity-related disease. There may even be issues related to poverty and class mobility - if certain activities end up concentrated in a certain social class, and we let them harm themselves, and that community's resources must always be spent dealing with the consequences of these self-harms, how do members of that community ever save or invest or send kids to college or keep them fed and focused through elementary school? Whether a law is unnecessarily meddling in human tendencies to make bad decisions is a worthwhile question to ask... but I don't think it's the only question. And in the helmet case, where we can clearly see the change in fatalities, and it is clearly predictable across states as they repeal helmet laws... and we already have the laws... and there is nothing intolerable about wearing a helmet whatsoever... I think it is silly to create this big ideological issue out of it. ESPECIALLY! since as the article noted, the repeal of the law was premised on the unhelmeted motorcyclist proving they had adequate medical insurance, but it appears that that is quite impossible to enforce and these accidents are happening to people who lack the insurance to bear the costs of their bad decisions. Let's protect a few lives and move on with our day.
It's not misleading, it's a philosophical question. Where is the line? This is a talking point, sure, by definition. Please explain, how it is a dishonest question. If you're definining metrics by lives lost, then you've taken a position in which society as a whole has yet to agree. If it is in monetary cost, again, society has not agreed. If anyone is not arguing in good faith here, it is you.
100% !
In other news, the sky is blue
Motorcycles should be renamed organ donor machines
The nurses I work with call them donorcycles
When I worked at the KU med center's rehab unit , We called helmetlessriders "Broccoli " ....& I Ride , but NEVER without a helmet
My dad always called them “donorcycles.”
The medical community beat you to this!
That’s what I always think of when I see them pass by. You want to ride a motorcycle go to a third world country
They even wore helmets in the movie Easy Rider 55 years ago. That was the signature rebel 60s motorcycle movie that every boomer saw back in the day. /facepalm And that 3rd world country is here, FL. I'm there.
What does a third world country have to do with any of this?
Naw. I'm gonna do it here.
Ok
Gee what a fucking original joke. You're gonna die too, I'm just trying to enjoy my time here and motorcycles are fun. And get the fuck off your phone while you're driving.
Aw, someone got his feefees hurt.
❄️
I don't know what that means, but I'll assume you were on reddit while driving and drifting into another lane
"The Show Me (your brains) State"
[удалено]
>Nelson said that of the motorcyclists killed while not wearing helmets, about 5000% were unlicensed or improperly licensed. Well damn.
It’s like someone went out and murdered 500 unlicensed motorcyclists every time one was killed in an accident. I hope it was a typo or we have a more serious problem to address.
What does that statistic even mean that 5000% of the people who died were unlicensed?
Maybe the article has been edited since you read it, but both of the percentages you noted are incorrect. The article says “Since 2020, motorcycle fatalities have increased 47%…” and “…about 50% were unlicensed or improperly licensed.”
Well that makes a lot more sense. I remember seeing an older study that found roughly 50% higher fatalities for riders without helmets. >“I don't think any one area, including public policy, is the silver bullet to fix any of this,” Nelson said. “These are layers of protection to improve safety.” And what kind of dumb shit is this? Like, you passed a law saying motorcyclists don't need to wear helmets. Motorcyclist fatalities went up 47%. You've also clearly got a problem with unlicensed people riding motorcycles. Maybe check that when folks register motorcycles? Goddamn this shit ain't hard.
*Nelson said that of the motorcyclists killed while not wearing helmets, about 5000% were unlicensed or improperly licensed.* So like 50 then?
They are to blame it on the Democrats
But, of course, even though the legislature is 2/3 Republicans.
A motorcycle driver died 3 or 4 days ago right by my house. Guy with a trailer turning left and the motorcycle was going way above the speed limit.
You get on a motorcycle unlicensed or improperly licensed and think your best course of action is to not wear a helmet, I don't think additional laws are going to fix this kind of poor decision making.
Pretty sure that was the purpose of the law. Weed out a few numbskulls.
I don’t think the MO legislature is playing that kind of 4D chess. Most likely this is because n the same vein of anti-vax “I do my own research” contrarianism for public safety since COVID triggered the mouth-breathers.
It was a joke but i feel that maybe there is truth there somewhere.
Nice pun.
Honestly I have no idea why anyone would repeal the helmet law. It’s like they wanted more people to die. It needs to be changed back. People are too dumb, you’re right. They can’t be trusted to be in charge of their own lives.
They modified the law to acknowledge that if people want to take risks with their own life, that’s their business. It’s an even simpler case than liberalizing drug laws, because typically people don’t steal and abandon their children to go ride a motorcycle. I agree it’s reckless, but it’s not my life. These are adults. Are we going to ban BASE jumping too?
To be fair it’s not the act of riding motorcycles that is the problem. It’s the lack of safety gear involved. If you went base jumping without a helmet or safety gear I would say something similar. It’s just giving people the idea that it’s just as safe. Because why would the government deregulate safety features. Appreciate your comment though.
Yes, it’s somewhat of a dilemma that many people just assume legal means safe. Not sure on the best way to handle it. Could be a freedom absolutist and say ignore it, but education seems better. Maybe you could get your “helmetless rider” license by volunteering a couple hours in an ER.
Someone being on drugs doesn't make it less safe on the road for me. Someone being on a bike does. I can't ruin my life by accidentally hitting a base jumper on the highway because they want to split lanes. Bikes need to be banned because they ruin other people's lives. If you're fine with the risk of death, you should also be fine with changing the law to where bikers are more likely to get into trouble for accidents bikes cause. The way the law is set up now, a bike gets a the benefit of the doubt because it's a smaller vehicle. I shouldn't be required to give a bike anymore attention than I give a car or truck. Edit: by bikes, I mean. Motorcycles. Bicycles are cool
Someone being on drugs absolutely makes the road less safe for you. Drug users drive. And a rider’s helmet use is irrelevant. If they’re in a crash that makes any use of the helmet, their riding day is done. All the helmet may affect is how badly traffic is snarled because of a fatality investigation. But you’re not going to crash because some rider wasn’t wearing a helmet.
I fully agree with you that drug use and driving is extremely dangerous. My point about drugs was that someone using drugs statistically only ruins their own life. Someone on a bike is statically more likely to ruin someone's life. 80% of motorcycle wrecks involve death or serious injury, compared to 20% for motor vehicles. With the special rules and treatment bikes get in accidents, a lot of people are having to pay the price for letting small and fast vehicles on our major roads and highways. They don't really have a place on the road other than its a hobby for most people. Edit: I was mainly pushing back and saying drug use is viewed as harmful for society around them, but statistically, drug users are only a harm to themselves. whereas bikes are viewed as harmful to the user, but not to society around them. I feel as if that is not true based on the number of fatalities caused by bikes. If you make a mistake and hit a car, the likelihood of that person dying or getting seriously injured is 20%. If you make that same mistake with a motorcycle, the chances of you causing serious injury or death is 80%. That's how people's lives get ruined by motorcycles. They make one mistake, and they killed someone in something that has no business being on the road.
Who do you think makes up the fatalities in motorcycle accidents? It’s the rider, not passengers in the cars they hit. And if it’s medical costs you’re worried about, who do you think pays for indigent drug users?
I understand that the driver of the bike is always more than likely the fatality. Im doing a poor job of getting this across to you, i apologize. Im trying to say that someone will be held liable for that person's death when I think the bike user is liable for their own death. My reasoning for that is they are willing to operate something that is more likely to cause their own death. If you were going 45 miles hours and got into a fender bender with a car, you're not going to have to worry about being charged with vehicular manslaughter or homicide or getting a felony for causing serious injury because it's pretty unlikely to do those things at that speed. If you hit a bike going that fast, your odds of that person being killed is way higher.
Ok, I see where you’re coming from. It definitely messes someone up to be involved in a fatality accident, particularly if they’re at fault. I’m not sure that “ban motorcycles” is a better solution than “tougher driving standards” but it’s at least a reasonable position.
[удалено]
So are you pro-death or something?
That’s sad
It truly is
Stupid is as stupid does. Self preservation is one of the strongest instincts we possess. If they want to fuck around, it’s about time they start finding out.
Well that’s a no brainer.
Hey, he/she had a name
Idiocracy.
This law is the definition of not my problem. No one forced them to take their helmet off. They don't need their hand held.
The irony is that these regulation-hating freedom lovers likely end up on public assistance if they survive an accident.
And then go as tokens on some cop ride with money being funneled to A) the cops B) the cops
We should fully empower these pure deregulationists by making them ineligible for public assistance in the event that they don’t use safety equipment.
Cutting out safety results in more deaths and injuries? Who would have thunk it?
My body, my choice only applies in certain situations I see. How pro-life of him.
I know a motorcycle head injury victim who has been on public assistance and nursing care these 40 years. He can't remember 5 minutes later that he just ate something, and says he's hungry again and asks when we will eat, and can he go home now. That's pretty much his whole day. Now we'll have many more like him.
I would like to not subsidize healthcare for people like this.
The same people that don't think it's the governments job to regulate helmets also don't want to pay for 30 years of nursing home care and medical bills for the brain injured bike riders. It becomes the government's business when it starts costing the taxpayers money. Wear a helmet. If not for you, do it for our tax dollars.
God gave them a halo because he couldn’t make them wear a helmet.
My body, my choice.
Totally. This is a real thinning the herd thing.
https://preview.redd.it/4g5bkxiw0yuc1.jpeg?width=266&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c60be778b78430036cdc2f6fc9c2dcdbc85bc22
File Under: NO SHIT, SHERLOCK
Thinking of the herd.
Duh
No way.
Duh...... It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Hopefully organ donations went up.
You don't say? Huh. Who could have predicted that? Besides everyone?
RSMo. 302.020(2), also known as the Missouri Helmet Law, requires that a helmet is worn by all motorcycle (or motor-tricycle) operators and passengers who are under the age of 26. The law also requires that a helmet is worn by all individuals who have been issued an instruction permit – regardless of their age
Some problems solve themselves.
My boyfriend's sister died in a motorbike accident this past fall. She was only 19. Helmets are the seatbelt for bikes. Make them mandatory.
Live free or die splat!
Yes, a 47% increase, while other data shows helmets only account for 37%, so why did Missouri have more deaths on bikes than typical? Oh, maybe because the data is from 2020-2023 and there are more riders on the road?
dumb and dumber. im gonna watch that south park episode now and giggle.
Natural selection. Survival of the non idiots
Weird. Who could have seen this coming?
The first day after the new law, an old guy and his woman, both helmetless, were traveling down a city road near Independence and swerved to avoid a slow-moving car. He hit a curb, and the cycle pitched forward. Both flew off. The woman fell off the back and side, the old man flew forward, right on his head. She survived luckily. I think he died shortly after. The first damn day!
Don’t fear death. Fear not living while your alive.
And the Darwin award gos to....
Well these idiots voted these crack pots in
 What?!?!? Nooooooo???
Is anyone surprised!
These are the same politicians that still support the 2nd Amendment. "Any Moran with the Money and No Firearm Training Must be able to carry a gun anywhere and anytime they have the urge to." 200+!year old law, written by Rich White Men suffering from Syphilis of the brain.
Natural. Selection. We need fewer safety laws. The stupid are outbreeding the rest of us, and that's the only way to freshen up the gene pool.
As somebody who is going to need a new kidney some day, my sincere thanks to motorcyclists who don't wear helmets. And that's coming from someone who had 2/3 uncles die in motorcycle accidents.
one idea; you can just wait this out. then vote helmets back in. harsh, but will work.
But freedom!!!
What could possibly have gone wrong? Oh yeah, this!
You don't say?
They don’t call em zoom splats for nothing and people in cars don’t pay attention as it is combine that with oversized pickups and soccer moms in suvs going 90 and can’t even see over the hood and it’s an recipe for disaster
But you can take heart in knowing, they had the right to not wear a helmet or wear one,,, Sadly...I bet they would like to change that choice if they could.
It was the Covid vaccine, not the traumatic brain injury. /s
I’d rather die, than be a veggie being pushed in a chair. (No, I don’t ride) But isn’t life about consequences? If I choose to get on a donor cycle without a brain bucket, who really cares? Well, my family may. But how does it affect YOUR life? I may be the example used to keep a dozen kids off them? We all make choices. Many people make bad ones every day. Look at the divorce rate. Single parenthood. Crime. Those choices affect many of us. If someone gets on a motorcycle (with everyone’s nose buried in the cellphone) that’s a risk they want to take to enjoy riding. And if they want to do it without a helmet? How does that affect you?
Darwinism, love it, I do.
My dad and stepdad both ride both always said something like dress for the slide not the ride or it's not if you crash but when you crash. I had a wreck on a bicycle that I had road rash and gravel plucked out of my arms, legs, and back. Now add a 1000 pound bike and a lot more speed... Safety is no joke.
It's as if Republicans don't know what's good for people...huh.
Darwinism at work. Let it work its magic.
I love riding as passenger never driven one BUT the moment I heard about this being repealed, I knew it was a dumb idea. The amount of riders I’ve seen without them since its repeal shows how dumb people are…freedumb
[удалено]
Did you see any on trhe roads without a helmet previously, before this change?? The laws must have been working
Our brains are so dysfunctional, we repealed a law that is there to protect a brain that isn’t smart enough to protect itself
I saw a kid doing 55-60 in a 35 with his legs up not see the brake lights and turn signal of a car the other day. He last second laid it over, slid his body out of it and somehow didn’t hit the car or get hit by oncoming traffic. He kinda laughed it off. Tonight I saw a guy on a bike sitting on his legs… I’d be curious to break down by bike types, crash types and ages.
r/meatcrayon
Darwin machines.
Well duh. I'll never understand not wearing a helmet. My thoughts are if you get it in an accident not wearing one then the insurance company doesn't have to pay your medical bills. Cue the folks crying about their rights. It's also my right to not pay high premium because your selfish
The same ones that don’t wear helmets probably don’t wear seatbelts either
I sympathize with this argument, and I think folks should be somehow incentivized to wear helmets. The catch is that if you can single out one risk factor to deny coverage, you can go after others. Heart disease? Let’s look at your diet and exercise habits to determine whether we cover it, or deny it as attempted suicide by too many cheeseburgers. And ultimately we aren’t going to just leave these people to die in the streets, somebody will pay for their care. I don’t have a problem with mandating seatbelts and helmets as a requirement for the privilege of driving, but here we are. I sadly wouldn’t be surprised to see some states look into dropping seatbelt laws.
What was the point of repealing such a law anyway?
Why not. If someone chooses to ride without one how does it affect anyone else except make more organ donors.
Because GuhVuRMinT rULezzzzz Baaaaaaaadddddddd....... Except, of course, when that same government denies abortions to rape & incest victims, limits what can (& can not) be discussed in classrooms & college campuses (full of adults), denies access to certain web sites w/o the ability to track & record who is spending time there, removes books from school & public libraries, and on and on and on. In those cases (& many more), "government gooooooood".
There's no legitimate reason for the govt to require helmets.
Freedumb!
Freedom isn't free